Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela Judgment of January 28, 2009 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs) In the case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Court”, the “Court” or the “Tribunal”) composed of the following judges:1 Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, President; Sergio García Ramírez, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge; Leonardo A. Franco, Judge; Margarette May Macaulay, Judge; Rhadys Abreu-Blondet, Judge and Pier Paolo Pasceri Scaramuzza, Judge ad hoc; Also present: Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, Pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter, the “Rules of Procedure”) delivers the present Judgment. I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 1. On April 12, 2007 in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "Commission" or the "Inter-American Commission") submitted an application to the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter, the "State" or "Venezuela") in relation to the case N° 12.442, originating in petition 487/03 forwarded to the Secretariat of the Commission on June 27, 2003 by Gabriela Perozo, Aloys Marín, Efraín Henríquez, Oscar Dávila Pérez, Yesenia Thais Balza Bolívar, Carlos Quintero, Felipe Antonio Lugo Durán, Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Beatriz Adrián, Jorge Manuel Paz Paz, Mayela León Rodríguez, Richard Alexis López 1 Judge Diego García-Sayán disqualified himself from hearing the instant case (infra para. 9 and 35 to 37). 2 Valle, Félix José Padilla Geromes, John Power, Miguel Ángel Calzadilla, José Domingo Blanco, Jhonny Donato Ficarella Martín, Norberto Mazza, Gladys Rodríguez, María Arenas, José Vicente Antonetti Moreno, Orlando Urdaneta, Edgar Hernández, Claudia Rojas Zea, José Natera, Aymara Anahi Lorenzo Ferrigni, Carlos Arroyo, Ana Karina Villalba, Wilmer Escalona Arnal, Carla María Angola Rodríguez, José Iniciarte, Guillermo Zuloaga Núñez and Alberto Federico Ravell. On February 27, 2004 the Commission adopted the Report on Admissibility N° 07/04, by which it admitted such petition. Afterwards, on October 26, 2006, the Commission adopted the Report on Merits N° 61/06 under the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, which made certain recommendations to the State.2 On April 12, 2007, the Commission decided, under the terms of Article 51(1) of the Convention and 44 of its Rules of Procedure, to bring the case to the Jurisdiction of the Court, on the grounds that the "State did not adopt the recommendations made in [its] report". The Commission appointed Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Commissioner, Mr. Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, and Ignacio Álvarez, the then Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as Delegates and Ms. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, current Deputy Executive Secretary, Mr. Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Ms. Débora Benchoam and Silvia Serrano as legal advisors. Mr. Ariel E. Dulitzky and Mrs. Alejandra Gonza, who are not longer officers of the Commission, were also appointed as legal advisors. 2. The facts presented by the Commission referred to a series of actions and omissions which occurred between October 2001 and August 2005, consisting of statements made by public officers, acts of harassment and physical and verbal assault, as well as hindrance to broadcast, committed by State agents and private individuals, to the detriment of forty-four (44) people associated with Globovisión television station, among them, reporters, associated technical supporting staff, employees, executives and shareholders, and also to certain investigations and criminal proceedings initiated or conducted at the domestic level in relation to those facts. 3. The Commission asserted that the alleged victims were subjected to different attacks due to the fact that they sought for, received and imparted information and that the State did not adopt the measures necessary to prevent the acts of harassment, neither it investigated and punished the responsible with due diligence. The Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 13 (Right to Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights embodied in Article 1(1) of said treaty, to the detriment of these forty-four alleged victims.3 As a result of the above mentioned, the Commission requested to the Court that the State be required to take certain measures of reparation and reimburse costs and expenses. 2 In the Report on Merits, the Commission concluded that Venezuela "is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5), freedom of expression (Article 13), right to a fair trial (Article 8) and right to judicial protection (Article 25) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) therein. Finally, the Commission made certain recommendations to the State (record on merits, Volume I, page 11) 3 The alleged victims in this case are Aloys Emmanuel Marín Díaz, Ana Karina Villalba, Aymara Anahí Lorenzo Ferrigni, Beatriz Alicia Adrián García, Carla María Angola Rodríguez, Gabriela Margarita Perozo Cabrices, Gladys Rodríguez, Janeth del Rosario Carrasquilla Villasmil, Jhonny Donato Ficarella Martín, Jesús Rivero Bertorelli, José Vicente Antonetti Moreno, María Cristina Arenas Calejo, Martha Isabel Herminia Palma Troconis, Mayela León Rodríguez, Norberto Mazza, Yesenia Thais Balza Bolívar, Angel Mauricio Millán España, Carlos Arroyo, Carlos Quintero, Edgar Hernández, Efraín Antonio Henríquez Contreras, John Power, Jorge Manuel Paz Paz, José Gregorio Umbría Marín, Joshua Oscar Torres Ramos, Wilmer Jesús Escalona Arnal, Ademar David Dona López, Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Carlos José Tovar Pallen, Felipe Antonio Lugo Durán, Félix José Padilla Geromes, Miguel Ángel Calzadilla, Oscar Dávila Pérez, Ramón Darío Pacheco Villegas, Richard Alexis López Valle, Zullivan René Peña Hernández, José Rafael Natera Rodríguez, Oscar José Núñez Fuentes, Orlando Urdaneta, Claudia Rojas Zea, José Inciarte, Alberto Federico Ravell Arreaza, Guillermo Zuloaga Núñez and María Fernanda Flores Mayorca. 3 4. On July 12, 2007 the representatives of thirty-seven of the forty-four alleged victims,4 Mr. Carlos Ayala Corao and Mrs. Margarita Escudero León, Ana Cristina Núñez Machado and Nelly Herrera Bond (hereinafter, the “representatives”), submitted the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter, “brief containing pleadings and motions”), under the terms of Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. The representatives alleged that the facts of the instant case are such that constitute the “subject-matter of the case” as “a series of facts that are not included in the Commission’s application [which would] be directly related to the facts claimed to be in breach of the American Convention, [which] should be appraised [...] as part of the 'context' in which the facts contained in the application occurred or as facts that aggravated the [alleged] violations […]”. The representatives requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible, apart from the violations alleged by the Commission, for the violation of Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, to the detriment of two shareholders of Globovisión, in relation to some facts that they alleged “have caused damage and have deprived the television station and its shareholders from the use and enjoyment of the equipment" of said station. Furthermore, they argued that the State has violated Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 13 therein, for alleged restrictions imposed on Globovisión journalist teams in order to access official sources of information. In turn, in the final arguments they requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 5, 13, 8 and 25 "in relation to" Article 1,2 and 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Woman ("Convention of Belem do Pará"). Finally, the requested the Tribunal to order the State to adopt a series of measures of reparation. 5. On September 11, 2007, the State submitted a brief containing preliminary objections, the answer to the complaint and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter, “answer to the complaint”). In said brief, the State raised four preliminary objections, namely, “untimeliness in the filing of the arguments and evidence contained in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence submitted by the [alleged] victims”, the “inadmissibility of the new arguments and allegations contained in the autonomous brief signed by the alleged victims”; the “prejudice in the roles played by some judges of the Court” and the lack of exhaustion of domestic resources. The State requested the Court to adjudge and declare that the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 13, 21, 24 and 25 of the Convention, attributed to the State by the Commission and the alleged victims,